Wikipedia:Peer review/James Dobson/archive1

James Dobson[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done extensive work on it with very little external input. Ultimately, I want to know how to get this article to GA, then FA, despite the fact that it is a BLP of a particularly controversial figure. I've no GA/FA particpation so far, so I could use help with process advice, as well as article feedback. Ultimately, I want this article to be suitable to appear on Wikipedia's front page upon Dobson's death.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. For example, Ted Bundy is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but several of the views are not in the lead (which should be more than one paragraph). Please see WP:LEAD
Several places in the article need more references - for example the last paragraph of Background has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Be consistent in refering to him - he should probably be called Dobson throughout, but is also refered to as Dr. Dobson, James Dobson, and James Jr. I would also avoid a bare URL link in the text - I would put http://www.ryandobson.com/ in a footnote / ref.
Read WP:HEAD and look at the Views section. Also avoid one and two sentence paragraphs by combining them with others or expanding if possible.

As for experience in GA and FA, watch WP:GAN and read some successful and unsuccessful GA nominations to see what people are looking for in these reviews (a model biography article would also be a good idea - there are lots of Bio FAs). I would then watch WP:FAC when the time comes for FA. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]